I visit sites like starcraft2coop for tips on commanders and stages, though I wonder how universal their information is. For example, the site said Swann’s Cyclone won’t do much, but you folks had good words for it, and I’ve been enjoying its sniping ability on stages with spawn/elite targets.
What are some of the other common info do you folks find discrepant?
It’s a good place to get general information. The gems and really useful tips sometimes can escape the average reader.
I think the information serves its purpose for the average player. And I feel it’s appropriate. Even taking the cyclone example, it is viable but the premise is that you have an ok map knowledge, understand the two general build orders, and ok micro to not waste them. Compare that to a very generalized Goliath. They are cheaper, requires less micro, and while dependent on build order to an extent, it doesn’t leave you with situational vulnerability.
What I find that has discrepancy is players have a tendency to religiously believe a guide simply because it’s on the internet. While they hold excellent informative starting data, it’s still important to test things out. And I’ve yet to see a source that mention and highlight that. Granted, I don’t look that hard.
So to that end, there’s a lot of discrepancy if you really dive into it.
I’ve had a few tell me that Cyclones melt trains.
That site is good, it’s done by a player who knows the mode well, but it’s still just one guy, and his biases, play styles, preferences, etc. That said, I don’t know how extensive he’s gone through for each unit, comp, etc., so maybe he has “done most if it all”? TBF, he also makes mention that things like mastery can be adjusted to suit your own play style, Mutations, and prestiges.
The site hates Artanis P3 and I think P3 is really good.
There are three main Co-op guides out there:
https://tl.net/forum/starcraft-2/526722-co-op-commander-guide-raynor
https://starcraft.fandom.com/wiki/Co-op_Missions
starcraft2coop.com
The TeamLiquid guides were written by a range of very good Co-op players, including many speedrunners – of note, monk (Kevin Dong) was heavily involved in writing them before he joined Blizzard as lead Co-op designer. They’re very good quality, but you should know:
The Starcraft Wiki is a bit of a free-for-all. It’s a decent source most of the time for raw numbers, but it’s not reliable for pretty much any discussion of what’s good or not. The synergy sections are particularly bad.
Starcraft2coop is written by aommaster, a Co-op streamer and very good player. He consulted quite a few other players while writing his guides, with overlap with people involved in the TL guides. The commander guide content isn’t as in-depth as TL’s and sometimes won’t be backed by as much experience, but it’s generally good.
I think TheFalcon has a point about P3 Artanis, and that’s a good example of the kind of area where Starcraft2coop can have a bias toward what the consensus used to be. When prestige was released, all interest in Artanis was on P2 (Nexus Legate) and after it was nerfed, it felt on the various Discord servers like almost nobody was even playing Artanis anymore. The idea that P3 was actually pretty good took a while to emerge as something of a consensus.
What happened to that guy that would always write about cyclones?
It was tragic, actually. He kited so far back he fell down the stairs and broke his neck. Cautionary tale, kids. Don’t try Cyclones.
Even with PTR Artanis P2’s power level, he wasn’t stronger than his P3. The issue was most people had no idea how to play Artanis properly, let alone diving deeper with P3. Given how P3 requires P0-P2 leveling, that alone creates a statistical bias. Less people reaching P3, less testing, and with that less of less (even less skilled players).
What’s tragic is how very many people remain on this kind of notion (therefore many guides, including all the ones above).
Who else even wrote about Cyclones aside from me? Or am I the referred person here lol. Cyclone remain an under-appreciated set of units. This really demonstrates just how far back the biased influence of these guides can have.
Even to today, a majority of players believe that “not opening with Drill” is a better opening than the alternative (originally provided by TL’s guide). As a result, it can really only place Swann’s highest DPS build Herc/Tank/Gol into a competitive spot. Whereas the truth is so far from it. (While I’m not speedrunner level of skill, if I can 12 worker Swann with Cyclone and out-kill 95% of random matches… then it’s a testament to its viability).
Just yesterday I said on Aom’s discord that the site said that p3 was weak and it was changed some time later, I know on his stream and the prestige tier list he made aom ranked p3 higher than all the other Artanis prestiges, but sometimes the guides are not updated when notions of the game change. But if you find something that isn’t right you can just report it and it will be fixed.
I’m too inexperienced to know, and too infatuated by “style” to know better, which is why I’d consult with you experts first. 
I am debating about trying to get Artanis P3, I have seen videos on what it can do… but Guardian Shell is a great allied support ability, so it would be pain to give that up.
Also… getting all the way to P3, currently on P1… PAIN.
The “problem” with guardian shell, is that outside of mutators, your ally should already be experienced enough to not lose their units. This is compounded even further with some CO’s that use to really love it getting prestiges that diminishes it’s effectiveness. Most of Raynor’s prestiges don’t need it, 2 of Zagaras don’t do much with it, and even Mengsk will be will be hopping mad that his troopers aren’t immediately exploding to save his dominion.
Even Artanis himself doesn’t need it too much, outside of strats that involve an invincible zealot getting vision for a solar bombardment.
Ironic. He could kite his Cyclones but he couldn’t kite himself.
Nah, it’s not you. That person doesn’t seem to be active anymore.
This is so true. While it’s nice to have Guardian Shell as a safety, all it really provide is a false sense of security.
Weird, I’ve erased this mysterious person from my memory entirely apparently. Thanks for clarifying though.
P3 has actually better a survivability in any sort of wave clear / objective push type of map. In a 20 minute game you can use shield overcharge 8 times, fanatic OS 4 times, (or 6 and 5), and solar bombardment 3 times. That’s 13-14 waves you can take out with minimal losses plus take your expo immediately . End result is maxing out quicker, which in turns means you’ll suffer less attrition.
Guardian shell is missed on the infested maps when you got to sustain fight for 3-4 minutes straight . But that’s 2 maps.
I’d like to add to this about infested maps.
For DoN, N1 is not an issue at all for going Tempests, as they stray in very slowly even with special infested accounted for. N2 can be held easily with some cannons as you’d have so much excess mineral (along side the tempests). N3 never comes because you’ve already won. Guardian shell literally plays no role here. Any other unit choice here will still fall in the same as “minimal loss for better critical mass army roll out”.
ME is slightly worse as the mission scales a lot more on the last ships. This still falls well within the more army is better notion. Guardian shell is missed but not really because it’s only 5 ships, even if you spare just 1 Fanatic per ship, you’re golden.
P3 is just best, a better tool if you will. That said, if the player doesn’t know how to use this tool, then it’s like hammering a nail with your head. It’ll work eventually… but you probably should use the hammer lol.
There’s a few strategies where you snipe objectives with the bombardment while your army is pushing a different objective. For those kind of speed running strats, the temporarily invincible zealot is used to get vision without needing the rest of the army.
-cries in non P1 bio ball- 
Actually P0 bioball needs it less than the others because a strong eco means you can rain bio with impunity. Unless you’re against an actually challenging mutator combo though.
I think the key word here is “need”. And I’m not sure need is necessarily appropriate.